Gay and Muslim?
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Salam
How is that could be considered as answering the following question? confused
Peace
There are multiple questions in that link...and only one question in the previous post. You'll have to be clearer if you want questions reanswered...reasking the question so that it can be reanswered would be better than posting a link.
As for the question in the previous post, I didn't make the claim that the two words are the same. The words are not the same. I even stated this in the previous post when I stated
"It is apparent that the words are different...look at the roots though. Also, consider the other evidences, such as different words used for wife and wives."
However, rather than get bogged down in such minutiae...there are some long outstanding questions that you haven't answered. How terrible it must be to accuse others of not answering questions when they haven't answered dozens of questions themselves. Why, doing such could openly expose a person as being a hypocrite!
I'll repost the questions here for your convenience! I'll even post my own understanding for comparison. Btw, ack is shorthand for acknowledged.
Acknowledge that AQ is not ridiculous.
ack
Acknowledge that physical evidence is not ridiculous.
ack
Refute that ALLAH created people differently, as is stated in AQ 3022.
can't refute it
Refute that ALLAH gave us signs in nature, as is stated in AQ 226 and 2164.
can't refute it
Refute that ALLAH created homosexual animals, as are found in nature.
can't refute it, except for animals that don't reproduce sexually at all
Refute that AQ 2929 lists reasons aside from male homosexuality that the people of Lot might have been destroyed.
can't refute it
Refute that the women among the people of Lot were innocent of male-male sex.
can't refute it
Refute that women and children among the people of Lot were destroyed alongside the men among the people of Lot.
Maybe. I wasn't a witness. There is an argument that they were saved with the family of Lot (peace upon all Prophets).
Refute that there is no compulsion in the Deen, as is stated in AQ 2256.
can't refute
Refute that homosexuality is depicted in cave paintings that physically exist that have been dated to be around 12,000 years old.
can't refute
Refute that homosexuality existed at least 5,000 years ago among humans in Mesopotamia, as is found among physical existing evidence.
can't refute
Refute that the people of Lot were destroyed around 1953 BCE.
can't refute
Refute that circa 3000 BCE is before 1953 BCE.
can't refute
Refute that over a thousand years span the time between the recorded homosexual acts in Mesopotamia and the time that the people of Lot were destroyed.
can't refute
Refute that AQ 780 refers to lewdness "such as none of the worlds had done before."
can't refute
Acknowledge that no person alive was present among the people of Lot.
ack
Refute that AQ 1736 states not to uphold what one has no knowledge of.
can't refute
Acknowledge that physical evidence can comprise knowledge.
ack
Acknowledge that knowledge is better than conjecture.
ack
424 And the independent from the women, except those maintained by your oaths; the book of GOD over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. GOD is Knowledgeable, Wise.
So, is a homosexual relationship beyond this, or not? Yes or no, please.
Yes, a homosexual relationship is beyond this.
Homosexuality and homosexual actions long predate the people of Lot. Could it be, perhaps, that approaching people lustfully (men or women) is transgression?
Yes, approaching people lustfully is a transgression.
In all seriousness, if the lewdness referred to in 415 is homosexuality or even homosexual acts, is this something that spreads?
No, homosexuality doesn't spread. You can't "catch the ghey".
415 And those of your women who commit lewdness , you shall bring four witnesses over them from among you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates their lives, or GOD makes for them a way out.
Even if the words did mean what you think (try substituting your definition in all places where the word occurs, lol), no punishment is applied without four witnesses! Do you dispute about the witnesses?
I can't
Homosexuality is not something that can spread--for that matter, neither is fornication. Do you dispute this?
Neither can spread; no dispute.
Homosexuality is not something that can be improved/bettered/cured. Do you dispute this?
Not by any known method; no dispute.
So then...where is this "homosexuality" that you are referring to coming from--a preconceived notion?
Can't answer this question for you!
Start bringing in other scriptures to supplement/complement/supplant the Deen, and there are contradictions. Do you stone an adulterer or lash them? Is shellfish an abomination?
Lash them, per the Qur'an. Shellfish is not an abomination.
Is the Qur'an enough for a believer or is it not?
For the Deen, yes, it is enough.
(your question) Whether "homosexuals" must guard their "private parts" EXCEPT to "wives" (women/marriage)?
So then, does a woman have to guard her private parts except to her wife?
No! All people have to guard their private parts, except to their partner.
"Except from their wives" is literal and applies to men only, hmm?
No! It is a mistranslated verse that properly translated states that all people have to be chaste except to their partner.
Is it not clear that the verses refer to pairs/mates/groups (which includes spouses)?
It is clear to me!
@muslims You stated that when I place words for comparison that they "ignores its context" , then apply 548-49 out of context? What is the word that best describes a person that accuses others...and undertakes the same action that they accuse others of?
Yes, and the word is "hypocrite".
What are the words for wife and wives in AQ?
There are multiple words. It is puzzling why one would believe that "azwjihim" means wives and wives only when so many other words are used to describe wives.
What do you mean by "general" verses? Do you discount any verses and if so, which and why?
There are no such things as general verses, only verses. I discount none of them.
What do you call a person who engages in hypocrisy?
a hypocrite
Were you attempting a pun (straight path) in a serious conversation?
If so, it was not funny.
Is pretending insult when you weren't even singled out just a way of muddying the water?
This is an example of muddying the water, but whether it was done deliberately or not is unclear (no pun intended).
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Salam
The question is simple...
and I believe, you also ignored all the translation in that post.
Peace
I already answer yours, but itseems you're ignore it.That my post is also determine the shape of your question.
I already told you if 235-6 is not about marriage, but guard private parts from mate (mate can be same-sex gender).Yes marriage in Quran is about husband and wive, but God never explicitly condemn same-sex marriage.
Interesting, you don't know the difference between the "Procedural Law" and "Substantive Law", and treat the "Procedural Law" as if it is the "Substantive Law" relating to the offence itself, and yet, still be able to say...
This has nothing to do with this topic.
Peace
-
Salaam,
I am terribly sorry for my behavior in this thread dear brothers and sisters. I should not have let myself be provoked into this meaningless quarrel and I showed a bad example of a Muslim and not enough patience. May God make me do better next time.
My last post off-topic here, I promise.
God bless you
-
Peace all,
It is very understandable that when topics of significance are discussed, it touches our cores when they are contested, so, naturally, tempers splay.
But when they do splay, it is beneficial in this respect they serve as reminders that we are in fact descending from debate into insults.
Insults, needless to say, are not productive in the objective pursuit of truth.
I myself have had topics vigorously contested that I hold close to my heart, though, I choose not to let loose my temper, but instead, rebut with a solid and cohesive argument to my greatest ability.
This, for me, is revenge enough.
Not to mention the fact that the use of curses towards other forum members violates the rules of this forum. And it is such a bore to see people throttling each other's necks every time I log into free-minds.
I pray, reason!
-
I already answer yours, but itseems you're ignore it.That my post is also determine the shape of your question.
I already told you if 235-6 is not about marriage, but guard private parts from mate (mate can be same-sex gender).Yes marriage in Quran is about husband and wive, but God never explicitly condemn same-sex marriage.
Salam
(from here)
No, I'm not ignoring your answer and yet, I mentioned how a "forumer" is better qualified and could reject all major translations in this world as being incorrect, in that particular verse.
Further, you are not answering my question, but diverting it to other issues.
Now, do you realize your conclusion that "mates" can be of the same sex (or different sex) means all the rules in "the Qur'an is now self-contradicting"?
All the rules relating to sexual prohibitions in the Qur'an is meaningless?
These rules? (refer here)
Including the rules that say homosexual is a transgression? (ie. the Qur'an is now self contradicting)
In fact, we don't need rules relating to marriages.
Is this your logic?
A self-contradicting Qur'an?
This has nothing to do with this topic.
It has, because you are confused between what is the "rules relating to procedure", and what is the "rules relating to the offence". The difference between "procedural laws" and "substantive laws".
Peace
-
Salam
No, I'm not ignoring you and yet, I mentioned how a "forumer" is better qualified and could reject all major translations in this world as being incorrect, in that particular verse.
Further, you are not answering my question, but diverting it to other issues.
Now, do you realize your conclusion that "mates" can be of the same sex (or different sex) means all the rules in "the Qur'an is now self-contradicting"?
All the rules relating to sexual prohibition in the Qur'an is meaningless?
Is this your logic?
Peace
So according to you, the majority always true??(3110, 6116)
Most of translations yu used is based on Saudi biassed fatwa corridor.I recommend you use free-minds translation.Now, do you realize your conclusion that "mates" can be of the same sex (or different sex) means all the rules in "the Qur'an is now self-contradicting"?
Even Quran only give fatwa for heterosexual marriage but Quran never God never condemn same-sex relation explicitly,then how yu judge if homosexs is haram.
It's like Quran never give fatwa about "masturbation", so we cannot condemn masturb so easily. -
Salam
Read again, I said "in that particular verse" and the "issue of self contradicting Qur'an" (context).
in that particular verse.
Please answer or stick to the question or discussion, and don't jump from one issue to the other. You are still not answering and just diverting from the real issue.
Peace
-
Salam
Read again, I said "in that particular verse" and the "issue of self contradicting Qur'an" (context).
Please answer or stick to the question or discussion, and don't jump from one issue to the other.
Peace
Your question's pattern is sorry it's nonsense for me, and my answer actually both A and B.
Peace
-
Salam
Why so quickly judging the issue as nonsense when I'm asking real question in this thread?
How do you answer all these self contradictions?
Now, do you realize your conclusion that "mates" can be of the same sex (or different sex) means all the rules in "the Qur'an is now self-contradicting"?
All the rules relating to sexual prohibitions in the Qur'an is meaningless?
These rules? (refer here)
Including the rules that say homosexual is a transgression? (ie. the Qur'an is now self contradicting)
In fact, we don't need rules relating to marriages.
Is this your logic?
A self-contradicting Qur'an?
Peace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Salam
and that is supposed to answer this simple question? ;D
Peace
Yes
"It is apparent that the words are different...look at the roots though. Also, consider the other evidences, such as different words used for wife and wives."
This answers the question because it acknowledges that the words are different.
Unless this is another game--the "simple" question is actually composed of three questions--see the three question marks?
The first question is a loaded question and isn't worthy of an answer.
The second question is answered, and reanswered, and will probably be reanswered again in the exact same language if you ask again.
"Context?" is a complex question that isn't all that important.If you find my answers unsatisfactory, too bad! I don't care. If you can't respect other people in discourse, don't expect respect in return. Answer your own questions to the amusement of the literate public.
If you can't put anything further productive here towards the discussion, you are wasting everybody's time. Reading page after page of posts where you have quoted yourself is a colossal waste of time to all involved, except perhaps yourself.
Of course your questions are more important than the questions of anybody else...that is why you don't answer questions put to you, right? I propose that it is because the answers would make you into admit something that you don't want to admit; namely that a person can be a homosexual and a muslim.
Is truth so uncomfortable to you that you can't embrace it? group
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Logic is different based oon human perception.
Now, do you realize your conclusion that "mates" can be of the same sex (or different sex) means all the rules in "the Qur'an is now self-contradicting"?
Including the rules that say homosexual is a transgression? (ie. the Qur'an is now self contradicting)Which part is "self-contradicting" according to you.
These rules? (refer here)
Including the rules that say homosexual is a transgression? (ie. the Qur'an is now self contradicting)
Yo made generalization too hasty.How u judge if Al-fahishah/lewdness especially in Luth verses is homosecual?
Please read 37135.If the reason of God punish Sodom is homosexual/gay act then why the old lady(possibly Luth's wife) also been punished too??
Rule relating to reasoning..
And the example of a bad word
is like a bad tree
uprooted from the surface of the earth
not having any stability
(1426)I don't mean bad word to you.That mine post didn't complete.And I must add "to say this" after word "sorry".
Peace
-
Which part is "self-contradicting" according to you.
Salam
Of course it is self contradicting, how can you say "Allah is allowing sexual intercourse between same sex", and at the same time it is a "transgression"? Did Allah mistakenly told the story or say something which is futility in His Book?
In fact, we don't need rules relating to marriages.
We just need "mates", same gender or else; ie. may also include animals etc, as long it is "mates".
How hard for you to understand this simple logic?
Peace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Salam
You are just spamming this thread with your "straw discussion".
Wishful thinking, and it is not from the Qur'an!
Refer to my earlier post, Allah says, "Enjoy Yourselves" ;D
Peace.
Whatever. )
Somebody else can feed the troll.
I have no time for you anymore. Indeed, reading this topic and others will be refreshing without having to wade through your comments.
Welcome to my ignore list!
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Again you only pick some part of my post, then comment for it.
Of course it is self contradicting, how can you say "Allah is allowing sexual intercourse between same sex", and at the same time it is a "transgression"?
What God blame for transgression??
I already told you, even @Abdul-Hadi also said to u.What God condemns in 780 is faahisyah not homosexual.
Is homosexual the faahisyah in that verse??No absolutely not
-First ayat 1660 (old lady also been punished for faahisyah)
-Second homosexual already happens before Luth era.If homosexual is faahishah then Luth and God Himself contradict the fact.If necessary please remove your logic sciences, if u keep avoid the facts.
Peace
-
Salam
Therefore, you are making the following conclusion
Did Allah mistakenly told the story or say something which is futility in His Book?
and is therefore self contradicting the following verse
Alif Lam Ra (This is) a Book
whose verses are made DECISIVE <- eg. La ilaha illa Allah
then are they made PLAIN <- explanation, refer here and (2.67-71)
from the Wise, All-aware
(111)Alif laam raa, (inilah) suatu kitab
yang ayat-ayatnya disusun dengan rapi
serta dijelaskan secara terperinci
yang diturunkan dari sisi (Allah) Yang Maha Bijaksana lagi Maha Tahu,
(111)Alif, Laam, Raa'. Al-Quran sebuah Kitab
yang tersusun ayat-ayatnya dengan tetap teguh
kemudian dijelaskan pula kandungannya satu persatu
(Susunan dan penjelasan itu) adalah dari sisi Allah Yang Maha Bijaksana, lagi Maha Mendalam pengetahuanNya
(111)The verse is now, according to you, is not perfect.
It is inserted there with no purpose.
and
Is homosexual the faahisyah in that verse??No absolutely not
refer here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605924.msg340756#msg340756
How about sexual intercourse with animals?
Can human beings make sexual intercourse with chickens? birds? goats? cows? cats?
(Warning!! please buy health insurance to cover costs of surgery before involving with any of these animals, especially cats! I disclaim any responsibility for any wrongful or ridiculous advice from any members in this forum! ;D )Is it faahisyah?
Allah did not mention it in the Qur'an, and people can declare it as their "mates" to escape any prohibitions, or even human laws (defence of lawful religious practices etc.).
Is this your logic? confused
(from here, main issue)
The problem of difference in tafseer within Quranist is lack of study and lack of wisdom and clear thinking.
I try to use wisdomly conclusion for this cause, read http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605584.msg332714#msg332714
I already told you if 235-6 is not about marriage, but guard private parts from mate (mate can be same-sex gender).
I believe you have much wisdom and clear thinking to answer all these contradictions.
Therefore..
How do you answer all these self contradictions?
Peace
-
Salam
How the rules in the Qur'an is plain, perfect and detail?
The Qur'an is very clear and detailed by using the method of "exclusionary principle". Therefore the rules in the Qur'an are very precise and direct. Of course, there are other methods.
Facts
"... And those who guard their private parts. Except from their wives or those their right hands possess..." (7029-31)
Analysis
And those
who guard <- What is "guard"? Scope?
their private parts <- What is "private parts"? Scope?
Except <- The implication of the word "except"? An exclusion to all other than marriages?
from
their wives <- Is it referring to "marriage"? What is "wives"?Question
Whether Allah has permitted "marriage" (or those their right hands possess) and PROHIBIT EVERYTHING ELSE?
(ie. same-sex marriage, homosexuality, masturbation, child marriage, animal sex, polygamy, incest etc)
Therefore, the Qur'an does not need to mention the prohibition of sexual intercourse with animals or all other sexual offences, and at the same time, being fully detailed. That is how verses in the Qur'an is plain, perfect and fully detailed; ie. the "exclusionary principle".
These were only my views. Allah Knows Best .
Peace
-
Your question's pattern is sorry it's nonsense for me, and my answer actually both A and B.
MAJOR QUESTION/ISSUE
Whether "homosexuals" must guard their "private parts" EXCEPT to "wives" (women/marriage)?
Answer, choose one
Homosexuals "must guard" their private parts except to "wives" (ie. marriage)
Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)
Salam
What nonsense?
Please read again, I say "anyone", with "quote"!!
Do you understand what is "anyone"?
Therefore your answer is B; ie. "Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)"
Wow.. That's pretty easy!
Is this wisdom and clear thinking?
Sounds like there are no rules at all to homosexuals.
Are you sure this is your logic? confused
I believe you have much wisdom and clear thinking to answer all these contradictions.
Ok actually I get bored talking about homosexuality in this forum, but because it seems some members in here didn't study the Quran properly
...
but there is no verse in the Quran which prohibit same sex marriage, if that verse is exist, just bring it to me.
...
If you disagree with this, then bring me one verse in the Quran which told us to judging or punish gays and lesbian.If you capable, I will hail to you.
Peace